I know that, but he is as lame as Bush if not more, so who cares? I am no Bush fan, but Kerry simply does not appeal to me. What is however particularly pathetic is this: in the greatest country in the world (or is it still the greatest country in the world?) you have two contenders for the presidency so lame that they would easily be replaced by any other politician in the world. Is this what this country has to offer its citizens? If so, the end of greatness is in sight...
And another excellent post with which I agree. I just can't get excited about Kerry in any way, but I am getting more and more a bad taste in my mouth from Bush. JB
All that blah blah just because you can't seem to accept that the majority of people are capable of understanding the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they are applied to the various issues of the day. You yourself understand that a particular position on an issue can be "liberal" or "conservative", otherwise how is it that you can tell me you find the liberal side easier to agree with? Doesn't it simply make sense to call someone that commonly identifies with liberal points of view "a liberal"? Isn't it obvious that such a person is guided by a liberal compass? Of course, we shouldn't let labels get in the way, but only a real moron would pretend they don't have their uses. Do you go around saying, "that rectangular thing, with a roof and windows", or do you just say "house"? a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties; showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; tolerant of opponent's opinions Lol. That's one of the worst definitions I've heard. Because it defines nothing. "Favors a political philosophy of progress". And just what is progress? 60% marginal rates and nationalized health care? And let me guess, "broadmindedness" is anyone who agrees with your 'enlightened' worldviews, and "closeminded" is anyone that doesn't? And, really, what place does "tolerant of opponent's opinions" have in the definition of a liberal? Non-liberals, conservatives, for example, are then intolerant? Right? Well, you seem to think so, so you want to tell me why? When you get down to it, is it really anything more than because I disagree with you, and think and let you know I think that, that you're an idiot for believing what you believe? If that's the extent of it, is that really intolerant? I didn't know tolerance had to end with a smile and handshake (or "peace" at the end of your post); I always thought that I can hate someone's guts but if I don't mistreat them because of it then I'm being "tolerant". I guess I "tolerate" in the sense of "put up with", while not necessarily "tolerate" in the sense of "recognize and respect [beliefs and practices of others]".
Sounds like you ought to get out of Dodge. 2nd Amendment was designed to keep arms at the ready in case a militia needed to be raised quickly, to fend of foreign threats. And I don't mean Chicanos courting your daughter. This place is chock full of nutjobs, half of whom probably belong to Posse Comitatus.
Quote from spect8or: All that blah blah just because you can't seem to accept that the majority of people are capable of understanding the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they are applied to the various issues of the day. No, I accept it because it's more practical. I just think the terms are not good ones. I don't like the concept of labels. So why should I embrace what I don't like? You don't, right? Are you going to hold me to a double standard? how is it that you can tell me you find the liberal side easier to agree with? I don't recall saying that. I don't deny it, but I am sure if I did, the context was not quite so simple. Doesn't it simply make sense to call someone that commonly identifies with liberal points of view "a liberal"? Isn't it obvious that such a person is guided by a liberal compass? If you like taking the lazy way out, ok...don't think of people as complex animals. Think of them as sharks and dogs and cows and chickens. They all behave exactly like all of the rest of their respective species. And they never change their minds. And they never varie their responses. They are completely predictable. They indeed CONSERVE their way of life by never altering a thing. Not for better and not for worse. So when a horse sleeps standing up, it's the conservative thing to do. LOL Why should a horse take the progressibe (liberal?) chance of trying to lie down and see if it feels better? Of course, we shouldn't let labels get in the way, but only a real moron would pretend they don't have their uses. Do you go around saying, "that rectangular thing, with a roof and windows", or do you just say "house"? Well, a house is exactly that. The sum of those roofs and walls and windows is a house. The sum of people's beliefs SHOULD be a bit more comples. You can call them people. You can call them "open minded" if that is what they are. Or "close minded" if that is what they are. But I don't know of any REAL LIFE PEOPLE that can be looked at, or even listened to and be defined in one word as to what they are. With "liberal" and "conservative" I just happen to dislike the specific words because these words have real meanings and the connotations of their present common use seems inaccurate. But OK, they do work, and that I have to accept. I don't have to like it to accept it. Lol. That's one of the worst definitions I've heard. Because it defines nothing. I didn't write the definitions. They are dictionary definitions. So go argue with Webster or whoever. And let me guess, "broadmindedness" is anyone who agrees with your 'enlightened' worldviews, and "closeminded" is anyone that doesn't? Funny...I would ask the exact same question of Rush Limbaugh. But he would answer "Yes". Non-liberals, conservatives, for example, are then intolerant? Right? Well, you seem to think so, so you want to tell me why? OK, I will. I don't want to be told what to say, or do. How to dress. What religion I should practice. What my sexual orientation should be. I don't want prayer in schools. I don't want some fat old men telling skinny young girls they have to have babies they don't want. Etc. I always thought that I can hate someone's guts but if I don't mistreat them because of it then I'm being "tolerant". I guess I "tolerate" in the sense of "put up with", while not necessarily "tolerate" in the sense of "recognize and respect [beliefs and practices of others]". Yes, your position on this is very clear. You've written epics on how much you despise Islam, etc. So there is no doubt that for you, your ability to tolerate is your ability to constrain your hatred to words alone. Which is good. I guess. I don't have as much first hand experience as you in hating someone's guts. Don't know if I ever have. Something to look forward to? Hey, remember the thread with book titles and their authors here on ET? How many "books" did you "write" on the topic of hatred and intolerance? You made everyone's list. Even your own. So maybe there is something special about your ability to harbor ill will. You clearly revel in agitation. So agitate away. One last thing. Let's take Maverick for example. I am sure you would say he is a "conservative". Even he would. But I could easily give examples of aspects of his beleifs that are "liberal". Just as ART (or whatever alias he is using now) has certain "conservative" outlooks. Nothing is black and white. And that is really my whole objection to these labels. Put GWB in a time machine and send him back only 40 years or so, and he would be a hard core liberal. RS
That it is maturity with depth and wisdom, they recognize that Bush is an underdeveloped fool, and that the Republicans have to hold on to him. Kerry sees what an historical accident Bush is. He was a momentary AntiClinton with a well placed brother. In years ahead, people will wonder, what were people thinking to elect this man as President? Come on, do you really see this man as a great leader, an inspiration? A bumbling nitwit as head of the United States. It's an almost indescribable embarrassment that Bush is our President. Thieves, beggars, and conmen get to the top in our Corporations and our political system. Men and women both honorable and talented get shunted aside. We are a society infected by decay and greed. The Republican ascendancy is the apotheosis of Leo Durocher's aphorism, "Nice Guys Finish Last" Bush's place in history will be a mere footnote. The man who read childrens' stories while Osama knocked down the Twin Towers.
Why should the government have nuclear weapons and I as an individual not be able to possess a handgun? As a liberal aren't you concerned with my rights to be in possession of whatever the Hell I want? Who is big brother to say I can't defend myself?
Pabst, I believe in the right to own a gun. I don't see much reason for it, but that's a different issue. But your response to dgabriel's post seems non responsive. He stated the REASON for the second amendment. You turn around and ask why the government should be allowed to have weapons bigger than yours. I did not notice in his post any words to imply that you could not own a handgun. Do I need reading glasses? I think the whole 2nd amendment issue is really a non issue. Even the NRA believes in gun control. This argument is too old to make....the muzzle loading muskets of the 18th century vs. today's weapons....New York City is probably the hardest place in the country to legally own a modern firearm. But if you want a black powder muzzle loading flintlock, you don't need any license at all. Walk right into an antique store on Lexington Ave. and pay the tab and walk out with a real working handgun. No muss, no fuss. State of the art weapon in 1776. No one cares. Need black powder? Go to a hobby store. Hell, you can get model rocket fuel that's even more powerful with no problem. Need bullets? Go to a sporting goods store and buy lead sinkers. You're all set to duel at sunrise with Aaron Burr. We all know (I hope we do) that the present argument is about who should be entitled to own what kind of gun. You want to own a handgun, fine. Even the most "liberal" lawmakers know you have the right to have one (The Brady Bill was named after a liberal Democrat? I think not....). I don't have any sense of "Big Brother" telling you you cannot defend yourself with a licensed handgun. The argument seems to be about licensing and about what kind of gun is unreasonable for self defense. So if I believe that you don't need a bazooka to protect your home from burglars, does that make me a "liberal"? If you are a "card carrying conservative" (hey, how come you guys always talk about "card carrying" in reference to "liberals" only?) ..I digress....so you are a "Staunch Conservative" (yeah, that sounds better) does that mean you need to believe in unlimited fire power? Where is the line that separates "liberals" from "conservatives" in gun ownership? Is it rounds per second? Slug size? Velocity? The whole thing seems like just another right wing cause to bitch about the government. No one wants to take the gun from your cold dead hands. They only want to make sure you are law abiding and licensed. Just like driving a car (which can be a deadly weapon). Do you think the government is being too "Big Brotherish" by requiring a driver's license? And even that....stay off public roads, and you can drive anything you want at any speed at any age. You do believe in private property, right? Put a road on your lawn, and let your three year old go 160 MPH in your Ferrari. Perfectly legal. He can even hang his left arm out the window and shoot your dog with the flintlock while he's taking a hard corner. As long as it's ok with you and on your propery. Seems like this whole "Big Brother" argument is complete nonsense in this particular case. And I also think you agree with me, but would just prefer to argue for argument's sake on this issue. Am I wrong? Do you really want a bazooka? Do you really think the military shouldn't have more powerful weapons than your next door neighbor? Peace, RS
Well, it does appear we have reached some sort of agreement. So, you agree then, that in common uses of the word, you'd qualify as a liberal, at least in the eyes of others? Actually, I'll argue with you, 'cos you chose to post that definition knowing full well it's not what people generally mean when they refer to "liberals" in the context of political debates. Limbaugh, Limbaugh. You wanna know something? I've never listened to a minute of Limbaugh in my life. I wouldn't even recognize him if I saw him. My point was that that is why that definition you posted defines nothing for us. Well, I can see that your liberal bent is skewing your perception of those issues. Those strawmen you've setup are not positions held by real conservatives (real, as in living, existing). Let's just take a quick look at them, for fun. [1]No conservative I know of advocates telling people what to say. [2]Every political decision has consquences for what people are allowed to do. [3]Lol. [4]Lol. [5]Conservatives don't have to like homosexuals, rs. The majority do still allow homosexuals to be homosexuals, though. [6]Whoa, you're being a bit "intolerant", wouldn't you say? [7]Oh, of course, 'cos the abortion debate is just so fucking simple and anyone that doesn't see it your way must be a real dickhead. Great examples of intolerance there, RS! Oh, you "guess", do you? What else would you have me do then, RS? You've picked on me for this since you first read my posts, yet, do you ever stop to think that if it wasn't for the internet I would'nt be saying the things I say at all? In other words (and I know you won't believe me), in 'real life', I probably am that paragon of tolerance you think everyone should be, because I don't ever argue politics or religion with anyone, 'cos those are industrial strength friendship breakers and, contrary to your continual accusations, there's nothing I enjoy more than friendly and pleasant relationships with people (not nothing I enjoy more than arguing with people -- that is total rs7 myth.) Again, I'm pretty sure you don't believe a word of this, which is fine, because all you've got to go on is my message board posts, which don't exactly paint a picture of congeniality (and this is the last time I'm going to bother explaining myself), but then I do wish you'd stop pouting when max doesn't buy into your story (unless you enjoy being a hypocrite). And here I was thinking you'd just learnt a thing or two about what "tolerance" is and isn't, but, nope, I guess not. How many times have I told you I don't care for your evaulations of me? And yet you still keep giving them to me. It's not just me you do it to either, so maybe you think that "I'm a better person than you" wins you debating points? Gee, RS, you don't say!